Legal analysis of the Kenosha shooting incidents

People always ask me whether I’m a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, and whenever I reply with “neither” they say “then what are you?” And I respond the same way: “A seeker of truths.”

When I see incidents like the shooting incidents in Kenosha, I only care about one thing: finding out what happened, who is responsible, and what the appropriate punishment should be. I don’t view these incidents or similar ones with any type of a tribal slant. So in this post I’m going to examine what we know so far, what can be discerned, and who is responsible, and what punishments should be handed out, analyzed from a legal perspective.

Jacob Blake:

According to the latest reports, the police were called to aid a woman who had reported a confrontation with an ex-boyfriend.  That man was Jacob Blake. This man reportedly had previously sexually assaulted her, she claims several times per reports, and he had a history of violent crime and a warrant out for his arrest. Latest reports state she told the officers how much she feared the man due to their history. The police arrived to intervene and place Blake under arrest. A scuffle broke out between Blake and the officers at some point, a failed attempt to taser him was made, and eventually he proceeded to retreat back to his car as officers pursued with guns drawn pointed directly at him. When Blake reached his car, he opened the door, an officer attempts to pull him back from entering the vehicle, and Blake begins climbing or into the driver’s side, an officer yells something at him, reaches around to the opening, and then fire a reported 7 shots into his back.

Officers are legally allowed to use lethal force if they feel their lives or the lives of civilians are in immediate danger. That doesn’t necessarily have to include a direct attempt of lethal force at the officer. That can include potential outcomes should lethal force by the officer not be used. For example, a civilian being asked to comply, refusing, and reaching into his pocket for an object. The reason for this is, if the officer does not act, the individual could pull out a firearm and kill or wound the officer, and hurt any nearby civilians. The officer’s job is to assess the situation and make the best call that protects his life, the life of any accompanying officers, and nearby civilians. This can, at times, lead to subjectivity, as the assessment on what constitutes a potential life and death situation is one’s own judgement. Generally, officers are trained to de-escalate, and attempt to subdue an individual in a non-violent way before resorting to lethal force.

In the case of Jacob Blake, more information needs to come out to make an official determination. Did he threaten the officers? If he said something like “I’m going to my car to get a gun” or he threatened to injure or kill the officers before opening his car door, then by the letter of the law, they could make a good case their lives or civilians were in danger and lethal force was justifiable. No one knows what Blake said, if anything as of yet.

If the situation played out as currently presented, with nothing said, and described above? That is a tougher call to make from a legal analysis perspective. Blake had a warrant out for his arrest. He has a record of violent acts. That factors in when officers asses the threat of danger in a situation. The question here is could the officers have subdued him in a non-violent way and place him under arrest? A case can be made both ways. They tried to subdue him on the ground previously, and tried to taser him, both which failed. There is an argument to be made that he should’ve been detained on the ground long before reaching his car, however that had already been attempted multiple times. Once, on the physical scuffle on the ground, a second with at least one shot from a taser, and a third trying to grab him and pull him back and preventing him from entering his vehicle. Perhaps another attempt would have been necessary. I personally think their multiple attempts would satisfy any investigating body as they adequately followed procedure before resorting to lethal force. One has to also wonder if the death of George Floyd being pinned on the ground had any impact on these officers’ willingness to subdue the subject on the ground.

Regardless, 7 shots feels like excessive force on the surface. Blake’s back was turned to them, and even if they believed he was reaching for a weapon, or had a chance to be(a knife was recovered) 7 shots may seem extreme to many. However, if they reached the point to where they determined lethal force is justified, they are to do whatever is necessary to neutralize the individual and prevent him from harming them or others. Whether that is one shot or 7 shots. For example, to many, one shot would not be considered "excessive" but one shot to the head can easily be more lethal than 7 shots to the torso. In a matter of a few seconds, the officers have to assess the threat level, if they allow him to get into that car, what is the risk someone else, or them could wind or dead or severely harmed. What if he had a gun in the car? If he is allowed to retrieve a firearm, the lives of the officers and anyone nearby would be extreme danger. Given that he already has a warrant out for his arrest, the more trouble he gets himself into, the less he has to lose, given that jail time is already likely a given.  Given his history of violent crime, the fact that they were in a blind spot and couldn't see into the car, the fact that there were several innocent bystanders in the immediate area, and the fact that there were children in the car; having gone over this incident for several days now, I lean toward them making the right call here in the brief number of seconds they have once he opens that car door and tries to enter.

It is a lean for me right now, it is not a slam dunk. This isn't an armed man with an assault rifle coming out from a bank shooting everything in sight and officers needing to take him down without a second thought. Keep in mind that since he had a warrant for his arrest and they were there to arrest him, had they let him get into the car, the situation would have turned into a vehicle pursuit and potential high speed chase to arrest this man... with children in the car. The biggest question overall to me is not were 7 shots excessive, it's could they have peacefully and restrained him prior to reaching his car without using lethal force?

Legally, this is a somewhat difficult call. This will be a tough one to charge the officers with, and in a court of law would be tough to convict. I think the prosecution and defense could both make strong arguments. The defense could argue that there is a man who has a warrant out for his arrest, already resisted arrest, subduing him had failed, he had a history of violent acts, and tried to enter a vehicle creating a blind spot for the officers. The prosecution could argue that they had him outnumbered, could have found a way to subdue him in a non violent manner, and used lethal force irresponsibly.

Regardless, I think anyone who thinks this is a clear cut case one way or another is not viewing this in an objective way. I don’t believe there is enough information to determine either way as we currently stand, and even as currently presented, there are arguments to be made both in support or against the officers from a legal perspective. The question here is legality, not morality. They stand independent in a court of law, and any charge and prosecution has to prove they broke the letter of the law. Unfortunately, there is no body cam footage, which would’ve provided more evidence, and they definitely should have been on. It would have helped clarify some unknowns one way or the other in this case. I will continue to update as more information becomes available. But as of now, again, I do lean that this was a justifiable use of lethal force. Of course he survived, so this is technically attempted lethal force I guess, though the intent when firing that many shots is certainly to shoot to kill.

Lastly, in case you were wondering, yes, with the warrant out for his arrest, the officers there are obligated to place him under arrest. If not, anyone who could potentially be harmed that day by him would be the responsibility of the police department for not doing their job, and the families of anyone he potentially would’ve hurt could sue the department for untold millions in damages.

Kyle Rittenhouse:

Early information indicates that Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin with an AR-15 with the intention of protecting public property that was being vandalized and looted. At some point a confrontation with protestors and/or rioters broke out, an individual chased and threw something at Rittenhouse, he turned around and fired on the individual, hitting him in the head and killing him. After this, nearby people gave chase to Rittenhouse as he fled the area, he was eventually struck with a skateboard, fell to the ground and shot two more individuals, killing one and wounding the other. He was ultimately charged with first degree murder.

First of all, a 17 year old kid is not of legal age to open carry a gun in the states of Illinois and Wisconsin, so that is breaking the law right there, and traveling across state lines with a firearm to defend property that isn’t yours is a no-no, and likely was going to lead to something bad. Do I know what his true intent was? No. No one does. Anyone who suggests they do has an agenda. Maybe he was an immature ramped up teenage kid who wanted to see some action. Maybe he truly just did want to do good. I saw a video of him requesting to offer medical aid on someone who was injured, before the shootings took place. Who knows if that was anecdotal or not. Vigilante justice is not ok. He was not a sworn officer or owner of said property, he doesn’t have the legal authority to protect another's property with deadly force, nor is he of legal age to openly carry a firearm to do it even if it were. He does however have the right to act in self defense if his life was in danger. Was his life in danger? Just like the Jacob Blake case, there is a lot we still don’t know. What happened outside of the recorded footage?  Was he threatened to be killed? Was a gun pointed at him during any of the shootings? All 3 individuals shot had criminal records. Two of them some forms of violent crime and another was a registered sex offender. Yes, this matters, in a different way than the Jacob Blake case. It shows a predisposition to criminality. This was of no significance to Rittenhouse, as he didn’t know these individuals, but it could be used in a court of law to argue that these men could’ve very well had nefarious intent to harm this man, given that they had a criminal background, even if he didn’t know their history.

The biggest question here is, did he act in self defense or did he perpetuate the violence? No one can adequately answer that at the moment until more evidence is gathered. The first shooting is far more important than the other two, as that is the one that sparked the sequence of events, and is more questionable with the currently presented evidence as to whether or not it qualifies as self defense. Remove the first shooting, and being chased by a mob of people and subsequently attacked would qualify for self defense in most situations. As it currently stands, it’s very tricky, just like with the Jacob Blake case. Does chasing someone and throwing a flaming object at them give cause to feeling one’s life is in danger? The jury would have to make that call. The defense could argue that people have been shot and killed in other riots and protests across the country, so an individual being chased with an object has cause to fear for his life. The prosecution could argue that throwing an object that didn’t hit him does not qualify as grounds to defend yourself in a lethal manner, and if he could’ve kept running, he would’ve likely been free of any immediate extreme danger.

The first degree murder charge is going to be a tough one to sell in court. They have to prove intent to kill or premeditation. One could argue traveling across state lines with a gun to join a protest/riot is premeditation. Others could argue that he didn’t shoot anyone until chased, attack, or provoked, thus there is no clear sign of any premeditation or direct intent to kill. I personally think any good defense team would be able to convince a jury this was not first degree murder with the current evidence provided. If anything, second degree would have a much stronger case, and even then with an argument of self defense, it would not be a slam dunk.

Personal thoughts:

At a time like the present, sowing division and discord through propaganda is the last thing this country needs. To see journalists and news outlets cast Rittenhouse as a “white supremacist” when there has been no evidence of such and even the Anti Defamation League says through examining his social media they’fe found no evidence of radicalization is both irresponsible and divisive. It’s pushing an agenda to create a narrative that doesn’t exist.

The people most responsible for these events and ongoing madness in other cities are at the top. Our nation’s governors and mayors are not doing enough to quell violence and destruction and keep their citizens safe. They’re mandating law enforcement hold back and creating a culture of lawlessness. The only thing proven to ever come from lawlessness since the beginning of time is death, destruction, and chaos. And that’s exactly what you’re seeing in these cities. Several people were killed in the confines of Chaz earlier this year, and already at least 2 people have been killed in Kenosha. Dozens have been injured in Seattle and Portland. This is futile leadership. And we need strength at a time like this. We need crackdowns and we need them yesterday, or more innocent lives are going to be lost.

Did either of these people deserve to die or be severely wounded? No. Few people deserve to die. The question here is were the actions legally justified or not. As it currently stands, I believe there are strong cases for either side of these incidents, and that isn’t always the case. Until more information comes out, and don’t know the full story, it’s impossible to speak in absolutes. Unfortunately, many people have already made up their mind about these cases. Emotionally driven by social media video, which neither provides context or a full story. Through emotion, logic is lost, and we need thinking right now more than ever.

In the fight for justice, Americans must be careful not to destroy progress

As a society, in the realm of crime, we strive for progress, because we understand perfection can never be achieved. Murder, rape, robberies, child abuse, etc... we do our best to ensure crimes like these never take place, but accept that unless you can cure evil, you can never cure violent crime.

Just like violent crime can never be cured, neither can police brutality. As long as evil exists in this world and people openly carry weapons of death, there will be lives lost that didn't need to be. It's impossible to completely eradicate just like any other act of violence. The goal is progress. Continued progress. Charging bad officers when they commit wrongdoing and hoping that the prosecution and juries do their job in the court of law to hold them accountable. Training officers better so poor decision-making is less frequent, and giving greater punishments out so there is a far greater deterrence on any officer acting inappropriately. Advancing toward a place in society our citizens can be proud of. If you read social media and listen to news reports across the country you'd believe progress hasn't been made at all. You'd think that both police brutality and violent crime are worse now than ever before. Many people do believe this.

In a recent poll, 56% of Americans surveyed said gun crimes in the United States are the highest they've ever been. Being inundated with videos on social media and network news pumping it into your pores, it makes sense many would feel that way. However, perception is not reality. The reality is, that couldn't be further from the truth. Gun crimes in the United States peaked way back in 1993. Crime in America has been on a steady decline since the mid 90's. In fact, the 2010 decade(2010-2019) is the best decade in recorded American history(dating back to 1960) in terms of homicide rate per capita. Yes, believe it or not, there were less homicides per 100,000 people between 2010-2019 than there were between 1960-1969. For total crimes per capita it was the 2nd best decade since 1960.

Visual news is more impactful than reading text. When people are hit with a constant barrage of the worst our country has to offer, their perceptions are distorted. People are always going to be more passionate about news video than they are reading a story or hearing it on the radio. So when every few weeks a new video of police brutality hits social media, it's only natural for people to believe that it has gotten out of control and is worse than it has ever been. When in reality, just like people believing recent gun crime is the worst it has ever been, the perception on police brutality couldn't be farther from the truth.

2019 marked the best year in 3 decades for unarmed African American citizens being killed by police officers. About half of them were deemed justifiable, as in an officer's life or the lives of civilians were in immediate danger. Regardless of those determinations or the subjectivity, and whether those were right or wrong, even factoring in the whole number(15) that is a 61% decrease from 2015(38). That is 15 in millions of police interactions with civilians that year. Decreasing any plague on society by 61% is, in my opinion, significant progress. Imagine if in 5 years we cut the number of rapes in America by 61%. Or cut the number of child abuse cases by 61%. This would be celebrated news and politicians and lawmakers everywhere would be praised for the progress they've made. Any innocent life lost is unacceptable, but we have to start somewhere. 2019 felt like a great starting point for tangible and noticeable change.

How come the recognition of improvement doesn't happen for police brutality? For one, as long as when the acts do occur and they're caught on video, emotions will always be rawer and realer. It's hard just to forget something and rationalize it with objectivity when you've seen something so traumatizing and horrific. People are in pain, and during times of strife, the last thing people want to do is think statistically or through data. It's understandable. If someone murdered a loved one of mine, I'd want to kill that person, despite the reasonable thing to do being waiting for law enforcement and the courts to handle it. The other part of this are the news media. They're a business, and just like any other business it's their job to drive ratings and create buzz. Outrage has been proven to generate more views and clicks, and nothing right now is a more hot button issue in society than police brutality. They are sowing division and discord in the name of their bottom line. Don't expect objectivity and nuance from any news network, regardless of your political leanings. Whiteblowers have confirmed that agencies will push whatever the agendas of the higher-ups are of those networks, and those reporting have no choice but to comply or be fired from their jobs. I've learned that years ago, it's why I stopped watching news altogether, and do my own research. It's more time-consuming, but at least I know I'm getting correct information.

This emotion and outrage has manifested into a call to defund police departments across the country. These calls range anywhere from just taking some money away and pumping it back into the communities, to "total abolishing" of both law enforcement and prisons. Regardless of your preferred approach, and how you phrase it, one truth remains a constant: if your goal is progress, and you want actual tangible and noticeable change both in crime in America and in police brutality, there is only one approach that has consistently worked consistently in America--increased funding for police departments.

In the 1990's, when violent crime in America reached its peak, there was a nationwide effort to get crime under control. In the mid 90's sparked a major funding campaign to provide more for police departments around the country, and hire an influx of officers. The result? The first decline in crime in 35 years. Crime started to rise in the United States in the 60's and didn't start to hit steady decline until 1995. Crackdowns, increased funding, more officers, better technology, new specialized units all contributed to this. That is progress.

In the 2010's after some high profile police violence cases sparked national and global outrage, police reform started. Body cams became more commonplace, departments started to increase community relations training, and hold more officers accountable for wrongdoing. The result lead to the previously-mentioned 3 decade low in unarmed black citizens being killed by cops and not just black citizens either. Police brutality across the board was making significant strides. More bad officers were prosecuted than ever before. Significant progress was finally being made, through proper funding and reform. Ideally, we'd all like these problems to go away overnight, but finally there were signs of meaningful progress. Imagine where we could be in a handful of years if we had stayed on that course. Maybe we could have gotten the numbers into single digits. One can dream, can't I?

Just like anything else in this world, to build it better, money needs to be put into it. To improve your home, business, car, school, it needs funding. Defunding police departments is a punishment, not a solution. It's akin to banning your child from eating junk food for a week after you caught him stealing chocolates from the cupboard after dinner. Except, in the case of defunding the police, it's much closer to banning your child from eating entirely. That isn't going to get your child to stop stealing junk food. It'll just make them hungry and more desperate to do it more. You'd be making it more difficult for over 800,000 officers to do their jobs to the utmost effectiveness for the crimes of less than 1% of them.

It comes down to one simple question: what is your goal? Do you want to lower crime? Do you want to decrease the amount of bad cops in our nation's departments? Do you want to lower police brutality? Then you need a practical and rational solution, not an emotional one. Funding is the one stream that allows departments to improve to achieve these goals. Things like better training, better technology, better pay for officers to attract more people to the job, higher morale, specialty units that can divvy up responsibility, and mental health care for our officers, and effective reform. All of these things require money, and if you want things to improve, these areas need advancements. We've all seen the steep rise in crime in cities that have removed specialty units and decreased funding. We've seen businesses start to relocate from some of these cities. All of this has the potential to lead to long-term damage to these cities. Not just in the form of crime, but poverty, and as desperation increases, typically does drug use and gang activity to capitalize on the drug demand.

Taking away some funds to put back into the community sounds thoughtful and logical, but it has never been proven to work effectively in terms of crime. Our nation's major cities have had millions of dollars pumped into them many times over the decades. Those dollars are typically wasted, as it's attempting to treat the outcome, not the source. The end result is the same cities today are impoverished that were decades ago. Parts of Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, LA, NYC have been riddled with impoverished neighborhoods for as long as I've been alive and many of those cities had money invested in them. It's not until crime is lowered that neighborhoods can reach sustainable improvement long-term. There is no cure-all for these major cities, but they can be improved. Completely wiping out crime and poverty in these cities is about as realistic as wiping out viruses and bacteria. There's too much of it and too many causes to totally eradicate it. It can, however, be lessened. The only solution proven to consistently work long-term in this regard is increased funding of the police departments. Increased funding leads to more officers on the streets, which leads to less crime, which leads to more businesses moving into these neighborhoods, which leads to property value and revenue streams increasing.

We've seen the improvements to parts of Camden, which started with a rebuilding of its police department by the county sheriff's office taking over, providing better funding, more officers, and better training. The result was decrease in crime, safer neighborhoods, and the construction of the Camden Waterfront, which even has the Philadelphia 76ers taking their practice facility to its confines. Just here in Philly, we've seen parts of the city like Fishtown improve greatly over the last decade as crime has decreased. You would be hard-pressed to find any major city that thrived long-term with decreases in police funding. It doesn't happen. You may be able to get away with it in some small South Dakota town that has about 120 people, gets one homicide every 5 years, and officers spend their days escorting the elderly across major intersections. Good luck getting away with it in major cities. We're seeing the results this year with defunding as crime rises. We saw the results in the other direction in the mid 90's when crime finally lowered after 30 years with better funding.

We know what works. History and data show will always be there to show us this. We need to be vigilant and logical, not emotional in our decision-making... as difficult as that is during these times. I, like everyone else, just want violence decrease as much as possible. Whether it be from civilian or police officer. We were well on the way to making significant long-term progress in 2019, and I fear all of that has been thrown off the rails. Cities are burning, departments are being defunded, cops are resigning, crime is rising, and civil division grows ever wider. We must fight for justice without destroying progress. We must not punish hundreds of thousands of officers for the actions of the few, or the end result will be the suffering of more civilians. It's a lose-lose. Those in charge of spreading and reporting news need to be more responsible in the messages they deliver and the data they withhold. If not, we could find ourselves down a slope, which could take us right back to the way things were in the 90's. Rampant crime, bitter and jaded cops with no morale, police brutality on the rise, and neighborhoods unsafe for our families in children. That's not the country want to live in and I don't think it's one you want to live in either.

I hate the Philadelphia 76ers

I hate the Philadelphia 76ers. Not the brand or the logo, that I'll always love. I hate this iteration of the franchise. The 76ers led by Joshua Harris, David Blitzer, Scott O'Neil, Brett Brown, Elton Brand, and Bryan Colangelo's staffers who are somehow still hanging around.

I hate that Joshua Harris allowed Adam Silver to make him force out Sam Hinkie when the Sixers broke no rules and did nothing wrong.

I hate how Harris allowed Jerry Colangelo to hire his incompetent son as GM.

I hate how Bryan Colangelo said he would bring credibility and connections to the front office and they couldn't lure any big name players to the organization.

I hate how they rushed their rebuild because they got tired of sticking with a plan they chose to enact in the first place.

I hate how they sell 2nd round picks every year.

I hate how they traded up for Markelle Fultz.

I hate how they forced Hinkie into drafting Jahlil Okafor.

I hate how every single year they always botch an injury situation with one of their key players.

I hate how they allowed Joel Embiid to play a game with a bone bruise and meniscus tear because it was on national TV.

I hate how they got a once in a lifetime mulligan from the sports gods in BurnerGate, and instead of using that gift to right a wrong, they waited 2 months to hire a GM, went into the draft and free agency without a GM, and then hired a dude from the Delaware Blue Coats with zero NBA GM experience... when they had the most coveted GM job in sports.

I hate how they took Zhaire Smith(or Bridges) over Michael Porter Jr. and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

I hate how they arrogantly allowed themselves to wait for LeBron James in free agency 2018 when the basketball world knew he was going to sign with the Lakers.

I hate how they overpaid in trade compensation for Tobias Harris, to give them the rights to have to overpay him monetarily in the summer of 2019.

I hate how they gave a declining big man who is a backup center a mega contract.

I hate how they traded for Jimmy Butler, who was their best scorer and shot creator from the guard/wing position since Allen Iverson, only to not want to bring him back after coming one bucket away from beating the NBA champion Toronto Raptors.

I hate how they decided to build a 90's era roster with no shooting or shot creation in the summer of 2019.

I hate how they always get duped by Danny Ainge in trades no matter who is GM.

I hate how they always manage to find a way to alienate their best player.

I hate how Joshua Harris also owns the New Jersey Devils.

I hate how Joshua Harris talks.

I hate the way Joshua Harris looks.

I hate Scott O'Neil's stupid overly gelled hair style.

I hate how they always made Brett Brown answer for the injury situations instead of sending front office people out there to do it.

I hate how they got rid of the red Sixers jerseys alternates they introduced a handful of years ago.

I hate how they blew confetti prematurely like a bunch of amateurs against the Celtics.

But here's what I hate most of all. When most parents raise their children, they teach us to hate the usual stuff. Rapists, murderers, child abusers, etc. One thing parents never think to teach their children is that the people in our lives who we are likely going to hate most of all are the ones who break our heart. The ones who hurt us. We can talk about how much we hate people we don't know, but true genuine hatred is spawned from emotion only a personal connection can generate.

Most of all I hate that the Sixers betrayed me. Not me, the person, me the fan. The Sixers were my first love. I wanted to see an NBA championship for most of my life even more than an Eagles Super Bowl. There wasn't a single time in my entire life where I ever felt the Sixers were going to win a championship. Even in 2001, I think most fans knew they weren't going to beat the Lakers. Sure, we had our moment in game 1, but that didn't last long. 2019 was the closest the Sixers ever got. I truly believe if they had beaten the Raptors, they'd have gone to the Finals and possibly won. All they had to do was run it back and they'd have had a great chance to do it again in 2020. Instead, they decided to go in another direction. The wrong direction. And they completely boxed themselves into a corner that's almost impossible to get out of.

The Sixers have no cap room, they have no assets, they have no elite young talent they can flip in a package for a superstar. They have no draft picks. Most importantly though, they have neither the owner nor the GM to acquire those things and figure it out. What the Sixers did was rob me, and every other fan of a chance at a championship. A feat fans have waited close to 40 years for, and through several years of tanking and horrible basketball only to squander in a couple years everything they built. They stole my love from the game from me, and they stole any desire I had to watch something I love. They broke my heart and ruined my first sporting love. Yeah, I hate the Celtics, and the Lakers. I hate the Cowboys and the Giants. But none of those teams ever broke my heart. They have annoyed the shit out of me and nagged me, but never hurt me. The Sixers hurt me. They ripped my heart out. And I'll never forgive them. At least not under this ownership, and I absolutely hate them for it.

I don't think aliens ever came to earth and why I doubt they ever will

Following the Pentagon's declassification of videos revealing unknown flying objects, speculation has run rampant on whether or not alien life is indeed out there, and if aliens have ever came to planet earth. Following that up with intel which suggests future reveals may show materials found that are "not of this planet" and the madness has caused everyone's collective minds to run wild.

I will never dismiss the idea that aliens have been on planet earth or that UFOs were truly alien spacecrafts. However, I think it's unlikely, and I'll detail why I don't think it's likely aliens have ever been to planet earth and why I feel it's also likely they never will(if they are out there in the cosmos).

First off, scientists estimate that 95% of the observable universe is unreachable from planet earth and vice versa. The reason for this is because the universe is expanding. The farther space is from a given point, the faster it expands from that point. Get far enough from that point in space and it expands faster than the speed of light. As we currently stand, no form of matter can travel faster than the speed of light. However, space is not matter. Space does not follow the rules of matter. Space can expand as fast as it chooses to. So, based off this knowledge, scientists have estimated that 95% of the universe is unreachable from earth even if you could somehow impossibly reach the speed of light in space travel. It would be like driving a race car at 100 mph while the finish line is moving away from you at 150 mph. You will never be able to reach that finish line, and it will just increase its distance from you.

Factoring this in, I'm going to immediately remove 95% of the observable universe out of the equation. That leaves only 5% of that universe left with the potential for alien life that could find earth, lowering the likelihood right off the top. Now, let's try and get into the minds of an alien race. For starters, I think it's reasonable to assume that any alien species with the capability to reach distant planets possesses much greater technology than we humans have. With that assumption, if you are an alien race advanced enough to travel to distant planets and galaxies, hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of light years away, wouldn't it make more logical sense to travel to a planet that could help advance you as a species than one which is behind you technologically?

Some may argue that humans are interesting creatures and we would be interesting to observe and study as a species to aliens. Let's explore that logic. As a comparison, if humans could travel to distant planets right now, would you want to travel to a planet that may have the key to extending human life, curing cancer, teaching us teleportation... or would you want to travel to a planet with dinosaur-like creatures to merely observe and then trek all the way across endless space back to your home planet? An advances species will almost assuredly prioritize logic and efficiency in anything they do, and any plan of travel through the universe is a safe bet to have something of significance gained for that species.

Others have speculated about sliens coming here and targeting our natural resources. Yes, planet earth is rich in resources. We have planet full of water and minerals. So does basically everywhere else in the universe, and hell, even our very own solar system. If aliens wanted to scour the universe for natural resources, they need only go to Jupiter's moon Europa which is believed to be rich in water, an infinite number of comets floating aimlessly out there, which also contain water. If it's minerals the aliens might want, the Kuiper Belt is full of asteroids far more rich in minerals than our planet. Oh, and they can do it without having to exterminate billions of living beings and engaging in planetary warfare with earth to boot.

So, we've eliminated the likelihood of specifically targeting earth for resources and for observation or advancement. What about accidentally stumbling upon earth during their travels? This I find the most unlikely of all. The possibility that a spacecraft would be traveling through a virtually infinite space and accidentally just finding earth is less likely than you finding one specific grain of sand in the entire Sahara Desert.

In general, I don't think our species or planet would have very much to offer an alien species that other planets and potentially living species can't. And it's an incredibly long way to travel for organisms that would likely want to be as efficient as possible. In fact, because of this, I think the most likely scenario if aliens do ever reach earth is doing so in the form of an advanced machine and artificial intelligence. Think about it. If you have the technology to travel insane distances and to other galaxies, you almost definitely have the technology to build advanced machines who can think, deduce, operate spacecrafts, interpret language, and communicate for them. Hell, we are well on our way of doing that and we haven't even landed humans on Mars yet. If you're going to be wasting ridiculously long periods of time in space travel, have machines, which can theoretically live forever, do it for you, while the living organisms can spend their time doing far more important things.

If one day we do, finally, do get a confirmed indisputable UFO landing on earth's soil for all to see, expect that what steps out of the cockpit isn't a big-headed, big-eyed looking freak; or massive creatures with long faces, sharp teeth, long spear-like tails that bleed acid. Expect advanced machines to step out, and probably greet us kindly, as any advanced species would know that no reasonable communication is made through hostility. Hell, they may even look like us, at least on the outside, to make us less fearful of them.